Waxman Watch

Thursday, March 13, 2014

Congressman Henry Waxman announced earlier this year that after forty years of serving in the House of Representatives, he is choosing to retire.

However, six months prior, he had issued an eblast to supporters declaring why he needed to run for office again, citing the usual liberal litany of causes (climate change, raising taxes, health care reform). A few weeks before announcing his retirement, he had conducted an interview with LA Weekly, which included comments from Independent challenger Marianne Williamson along with his 2012 campaign rival Bill Bloomfield of Manhattan Beach.

For all apparent purposes, it looked as if Waxman was prepping to run for Congress again. Why would he change his mind?

In the last four months following the Obamacare rollout, millions of Americans have witnessed their health insurance premiums rise, their doctors retire, or their insurance companies cancel clients’ current plans, the same plans which Congressional Democrats ad promised we could keep.

Reviewing the Obama Administration, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal offered: “We can no longer call Jimmy Carter the worst President in American History”. The investigations into Operation Fast and Furious and IRS abuses which targeted conservatives have deeply implicated the President and his party. The GM bailout, which Waxman championed, cost taxpayers billions of dollars, according to MSNBC. The only winners following the Solyndra fiasco, for which Waxman barley apologized, where Obama’s donors.

No one should wonder why Waxman is quitting. Not “retire”, but “retreat” is the word to describe Waxman’s decision not to run for office.

Thursday, January 30, 2014

After forty years of
unrepentant liberalism, and after winning his toughest reelection fight by five
points in 2012, and even after sending an eblast in 2013, in which he announced that he would run in 2014,
Congressman Henry Waxman is retiring (or rather, retreating) with other
long-term, over-time Democratic Congressmen in Washington, D.C.

It's about time! That's the first thing I can say.

But let's look at his reasons why and wherefore:

The reason for my decision is simple. After 40 years in Congress, it’s
time for someone else to have the chance to make his or her mark.﻿

Waxman pushed a 1,200 page Cap and Trade bill. He helped author and sponsor the
2,500 page monstrosity called the Affordable Care Act. There is nothing simple
about this Congressman.

Let's consider some of the lowlights resulting from passage of
Obama-WaxmanCare:

Of course, the long litany of lies, distortions, and stupid remarks from
Congressman Henry Waxman would inevitably caught up with him, too:

He did not know the basic laws regulating steroid abuse, or the legal drinking
age, or where $15 million for steroid abuse education ended up, yet he insisted
on running oversight hearings on the subject. (Check out clip from Bigger, Faster, Stronger here)

He did not even know that General Motors went bankrupt in 2009 (This was too much) He even played the One Percent card
to justify the $700 TARP billion bailout, which ended up costing taxpayers billions of dollars, including retired
teachers and police officers in Indiana.

Waxman claimed in open committee in early 2011 that "We're not broke!" Because of
Obamacare, failed foreign policies, stimulus largesse profligately wasted,
along with reckless overspending to rival even the Bush Administration, the
United States Government now has a $17 trillion national debt.

Not one, but nineteen green tech companies, subsidized with taxpayer dollars,
when bust under the Obama Administration, yet Waxman would only lament "I'm sorry Solyndra happened!" Of
course, Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa pursued Waxman's potential links with the company.
That was not good enough for Congressman Ed Whitfield (R-Kentucky) who slammed
the LA Congressman's obstreperous behavior. Even after his close reelection,
Waxman blamed the Koch Brothers for all the ills of the world, even
though Waxman spent forty years ignoring the needs of LA area veterans,
along with ignoring LA's need for the Subway to the Sea for better commuting
opportunities along the Wilshire-West Los Angeles corridor. This country is not
any better for Waxman’s efforts, whether relating to environment, health, or
any other issue, for that matter.

I'd like to offer my gratitude to Congressman Waxman for his dedication to
public service and wish him the best personally in his upcoming life as a
private citizen.

﻿Excuse me?! This kind of “bipartisan” pandering is precisely the problem.
For decades, both sides would berate each other in public, agree in private,
spend money that the country does not have, and do nothing to reform the
growing, unsustainable entitlement burden bearing down on our future. The last
thing that we need in Washington is more politicians who please themselves and
each other with niceties, while not-so-nice policies waste away our rights,
opportunities, and economic freedom.

No More Waxman! Retreat!

No, Congressman Waxman did not do a good job. Of course, there
are the numerous constituencies, beyond just the homeless veterans of Los
Angeles County, who have been harmed by Waxman’s legislation and policy
support. What would you like to tell them, Henry? He shut
down constituents in open forums, he played up the most rank
partisanship, and denied science while hyping up climate change as
a serious issue (it isn’t. Polar vortex, anyone?). His record of pandemic
liberalism has left us none the better, and he retired not a moment too soon.So, California’s 33rd
Congressional District is an open seat. Electoral reforms have done their job,
so far. Possible contenders: Zev Yaroslavsky? Antonio Villaraigosa? Ted Lieu?
Richard Bloom? Aside from a Malibu Exec and a West Hollywood guru, the pickings
are all too slim.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

So far, only two candidates will challenge Congressman Henry Waxman in 2014 for the 33rd Congressional District. Besides spiritual author/guru/lecturer Marianne Williamson of West Hollywood (who wants to restore Washington with a big, collective hug), there’s Independent Hollywood Producer Brent Roske of Malibu.

Roske for Congress: Can't We Do Better?

Arguing that Washington needs a “live-and-let-live” nonpartisan in Washington, Roske wants to represent the needs of Hollywood and the entertainment industry. Not even a sitcom could make this up. Upon winning, Roske claims that he will share his seat with Henry Waxman for one year before taking the reins of office by himself. Refusing to criticize Waxman’s prior record, but primarily focusing on the representative’s forty-year tenure, Roske might as well have proposed: "Henry Waxman, will you marry me?"

Roske’s articles to the Huffington Post have trotted out the same empty arguments from the liberal elite class. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. The minimum wage needs to be raised. Roske has ignored the research of economists left and right, who reject the government fiat raising of entry level pay. Even Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann (R-Minnesota) smacked down self-described socialist US Senator Bernie Sanders (another Independent, from Vermont) with: “Visit Australia. They have a $20 minimum wage. No one can get work!”

As of now, the candidates for the 33rd Congressional District are no good for the political soul. We need independence from Washington, not Independents going to Washington, showing there blatant independence of any better ideas. Will anyone better step up to Waxman?

Then there's spiritual author/lecturer/guru Marianne Williamson of West Hollywood, and Independent (?) who will caucus with Democrats. She aims to replace Waxman, now “serving” his fortieth year in Washington. Some political handicappers are actually taking Williamson’s campaign seriously. At least she is, since she provided flyers in the El Segundo public library a few months ago.

Williamson wants to redeem Washington and bring harmony to America. Humming a mantra and chanting “Ohm!” won’t do much good. A big, collective hug won’t bring bipartisanship, either. Summing up Waxman’s tenure in Congress as “I don’t know!” “I’m sorry!” and “We’re not broke!” would help.

Recently, LA Weekly published a cover piece on Williamson’s campaign to heal the soul of Congress, which has no a soul. Government does not need healing, but amputation (or sterilization). Like many self-help types, Williamson wants more government to restore our ravaged, savaged land. One unlikely article from the Ludwig Von Mises Institute (Liberty in Aquarius?) confirms the Big Government bent of spiritual gurus like Williamson.

As of now, the candidates for the 33rd Congressional District are no good for the political soul. We need independence from Washington, not Independents going to Washington, who will support the same failed policies of more, careless government attempting to care for us.

So far, so little for individual liberty. Will anyone better step up to Waxman? At this point, I need a hug!

At least she is. I saw some of her Congressional flyers in the El Segundo public library a few months ago. She also made the Patch.com circuit some time ago, too.

She also grace the cover of "Natural Awakenings" Magazine in November. Of course, there was no mention of her Congressional run, since such blatant electioneering would violate California campaign laws.

Her column on middle age and discovering ourselves was not meaty reading.

We still have the power to redeem our lives, she claims. Does she have the sand to take away the 33rd Congressional District from Henry Waxman? Or the soul, or the substance, for that matter?

Spiritually speaking, as a New Age guru of sorts, one who lives just outside the 33rd Congressional District, the notion of redemption does not spring from our minds tabula rasa. There is an understanding inside of all men, inside of all humanity, that we live in this fallen earth, that death is an enemy, and that something needs to be done about it.

While her seemingly uplifting piece in "Natural Awakenings" seems to open up new vistas of experience and life, she is merely spinning an old sale of humanized, old time religion.

If she read the Bible, she would find the perfect and accurate assessment of the living God, who through the death of His Son offers redemption to all who are willing to believe on Him (John 6: 29

Unfortunately, this Gospel is too much for human minds to bear, so caught up are we with our own powers, as if fallen humanity can help raise this fallen earth from nothing to something.

Williamson sits in coffee houses and encourages people to embrace their inner child. Washington is not a children's playground, or child's play, but the most exposed reservoir of selfish ambition, masquerading as service to one's country. Or the most partisan resistance to a governor gone wild, and expecting to get wilder.

No, Ms. Williamson, redemption in Washington will not be found in an Independent who will caucus with Democrats. She is playing the same card as Bill Bloomfield did in 2012, still convinced that an Independent in so partisan a fray can alter the balance of power.

Bloomfield actually believed that he would force Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner into a room and get them to negotiate which committees he would sit on, should he win the election in 2012.

Such chutzpah was duly rewarded. He lost 54-46. A swing of five points would have netted him the win. Then again, what would the constituents of the 33rd Congressional District have won for the effort?

Last week, LA Weekly ran a cover piece on her desire to bring peace to Washington and heal the soul of Congress.

Congress does not have a soul, and government does not need to be healed as much as amputated or euthanized. Like a lot of self-help, lotions and potions guru-types, she wants more government to help bring peace to our ravaged, savaged land. No, Ms. Williamson, the answer is not more of the state, but to state that we need less of the state in our lives.

I remember an article from the Von Mises institute, which investigated the political impulses of these Spiritual gurus. Their conclusion: they end up favoring more globalizing, concentrating power. So much for individual liberty, or redemption.

Frankly, looking over the prospective challengers who will take on Henry Waxman in 2014, I need a hug! A Hollywood something, a spiritual something else, and perhaps a Manhattan Beach billionaire without much but lost of money.

How sad, how uninvolved, how independent of any novel ideas or real hopes can a political campaign get?

Friday, January 3, 2014

Congressman Henry Waxman announced concerns about the Los Angeles Times last month, and the Tribune Company agreed to meet with him to discuss long-term plans to salvage the sinking media conglomerate. Because of bankruptcy restructuring, the Tribune Co. will spin off the newspaper portions into a separate company, Tribune Publishing.

In a letter to the Tribune’s chief executive, Waxman wrote:

"I am concerned that corporate actions the Tribune Co. is taking may not be in the best interests of the Los Angeles Times.”

The report continued:

Waxman said the company’s placing the newspaper unit into debt to pay a cash dividend to Tribune will "undoubtedly enrich the Tribune Co., but it may do so at the expense of the financial health of the Los Angeles Times and the other papers in the newspaper unit, all of which are already facing financial strains."

How did the paper end up in such dire straits? In late 2008, the Los Angeles Times acknowledged that the paper’s owner, Tribune Co., filed for bankruptcy. The article admitted that plunging advertisement revenue featured in the paper’s fiscal problems. Of course, the $12.9 billion debt load is nothing to sneeze at, either. Where did all the debt come from? According to earlier reports, declining revenue for the newspaper industry as a whole.

Still, why does Waxman want to save the LA Times? The paper is one of the most reliable, howbeit hardly viable, liberal mouthpieces in the greater Los Angeles area, of course. The unrepentant liberal bias of this publication cannot be ignored, including its frequent articles and editorial which hammered Kevin James, the socially liberal, fiscally conservative Republican candidate for LA mayor in 2013. The Times editorial board called the California billion dollar bullet train boondoggle a “worthy gamble”, even though the costs have tripled, and one poll registered that 52% of California residents want the bullet train project stopped (plus frequent endorsements for liberal, Democratic candidates).

Above all, one may assume that Waxman’s efforts to save the LA Times rest primarily on the paper’s promotion of the failing and decrepit Affordable Care Act, a piece of legislation, a monstrous one at that, which has forced the closure of clinics, along with pushing doctors into earlier retirement, along with the healthcare.gov glitches unending.

Consider the following headlines over the past few years touting the Affordable Care Act:

In the above column, the Times editorial board offered up the impression that the Affordable Care Act was not a matter of hubris, but a necessary government action. The same government which was supposed to insure the uninsured has not uninsured the insured, with millions more still unable to access affordable health insurance.

“In an interview, Waxman wouldn’t say what actions, if any, Congress could take.”
What can Congress do for the LA Times? Offer a bailout? Tribune Co., like many newspaper industries, has not shifted effectively with the rapid technological advances. Of course, the untrammeled bias of the paper has likely turned off potential readers, too. Diverse studies confirm the left-leaning elements within the LA Times.

Yet returning to the idea that Congressman Waxman could, or even should, do something to resurrect the LA Times. Congress getting involved in the content and dissemination of media? Such tinkering from the state in the media has happened before, with disastrous results for the Fourth Estate keeping the three branches of government accountable in our country.

The last thing that any Congressman should be considering is laws which will bolster the press. Do we really want journalists and their corporate leaders taking money from Washington? One can only imagine the distortion of current events and news reporting which would follow.

Granted, picketers lined up to protest the Koch Brothers potential purchase of Tribune Co, including unions, and half the Times’ staff pledged to resign should they take over. Then again, if the libertarian-leaning conservatism of the Kansas oil magnates could bring in more readers and greater revenue, working and middle-class employees connected with the Times should not be so hasty to reject the offer. Ultimately, the Koch Brothers’ decided against purchasing Tribune Co., citing that such a venture would “not be profitable”.

Much like the Affordable Care Act, and certainly any moves from the federal government to rescue the LA Times.